Expense Ratio Rating
2 /10
Expense Rating
0 /10
Market Score
10 /10
Category Score
10 /10
Market Size
10 /10
$WSHCX Alternatives
Similar Funds
We found 668 US Stocks Large Blend funds. Here they are ordered by FI Score.
- idiv
- ETF
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Metaurus U.S. Equity Cumulative Dividends Fund-Series 2027
Expenses: 0.87% (Better than 1% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- milcx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
BNY Mellon Large Cap Stock Fund Class Investor
Expenses: 1.09% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- vnsax
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Natixis Vaughan Nelson Select Fund Class A
Expenses: 1.16% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- mwatx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Metropolitan West AlphaTrak 500 Fund
Expenses: 0.90% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- egocx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Wells Fargo Large Cap Core Fund - Class C
Expenses: 1.83% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- dtccx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
BNY Mellon Sustainable U.S. Equity Fund Class C
Expenses: 1.70% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- midvx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
DWS ESG Core Equity Fund - Class A
Expenses: 1.17% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- gccex
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Gabelli Equity Income Fund Class C
Expenses: 2.20% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »
- eaerx
- Mutual Fund
- US Stocks
- Large Blend
Eaton Vance Stock Fund Class A
Expenses: 0.98% (Better than 0% of similar funds)
This is a bad choice for a Large Blend US Stocks fund. See why »